I rate the above post 0 out of 5 stars

Did you make sure your review of his post was funny first before you posted it? :P

Absolutely. And that it was straight to the point too. : )

Ideally a review should be written objectively, or at least somewhat. Granted many of us are guilty of either tearing in to the faults of a game we disliked, while glazing over (if mentioning at all) the strong suits. Or of course, the reverse for games we liked.
I find the ideal format for a review to be:
*review tagline!* Summing up your thoughts of the game in 10 words or less. (But preferably not just one subjective word like "great" or "sucks.")
Brief synopsis of your feelings on the game. And if you didn't play it extensively, saying so. (For example, I walked away from Earth 2150 after like .. an hour.)
Strong points of the game, and what it brought to the table that was either new and unique, or just stands out from other similar games.
Weak points. What it brings to the table that just fell flat (and why it fell flat), and things that you have come to expect from titles in that genre, that this failed to deliver, or failed to implement decently.
Closing thoughts. Comparison to other titles ("If you like X, try this."), value for the money, community for the game. Anything that doesn't really relate to any of the above.
And one thing to never do:
Insult people in your review.

Just read my review of ROTT and Blake Stone.
Should be a good template.

Perhaps GOG should take the path that other sites do, and only allow people who have purchased the game via GOG to review it. Then again, another alternative, would be the ability to filter out reviews based on certain criteria; such as: Bought via GOG, general length of review (probably via size of database entry and not word count -- considering server resources), rating (stars), rating (usefulness - ie, number of people who found review helpful) and so forth.
I'd also like the ability to rate down reviews that are not helpful.

I'll take the opportunity to come in and propagade my reviews of Jagged Alliance and Die by the Sword too

... or maybe you can just ignore the bad reviews.

I still read reviews from a print medium (WHOA!), PC Gamer (the US version, not that sissy UK stuff) and I enjoy their reviews. Sure, I could just read half-baked Gamespot/Kotaku crap, but I sort of relate to the stuff printed on dead trees.

I'd like to see a minimum length requirement or perhaps have the reviews split into sections to review graphics, sound, gameplay, story etc.
Anything that requires a bit of complexity would probably discourage the kind of person who'd just write "th1s gam3 iz teh ghey" and think thats a valid review.

Admittedly, when I started reviewing games, the reviews themselves were short. Hopefully, I've managed to flesh things out since, as I now focus on the various aspects of the game, and what I did and did not like.
Some quality control, or even a minimum length would hopefully make things a bit better overall. But I can pass by the small reviews that are more opinionated than an actual 'review'. It is the one or two sentence lol/leet-speak rubbish that I find disappointing.

I plan to put up reviews of all the games I own - or know well - from here, eventually. But I've set myself some guidelines.
1. I only write a review once I have completed the game. Recently. So if I haven't played something in years I go back and actually refresh memory.
1.a. And, if possible, try out some mods as well.
2. Avoid spoilers! Saying something about the plot is fine, but don't give away things. A good idea is to not provide more information than what a player will learn from the intro and the first mission, anyway.
3. Describe Game Mechanics. What does the game do, and how.
4. Then add personal oppinion - this is a review after all - but explain your reasoning.
5. USE the full range of the ranking spectrum:
* = Atrocious game.
** = Ok game, but only if you like the genre.
*** = Average (I'd expect most games to end up here). It's ok. There are no major bugs, it does what it does well, but there's nothing new, or innovative here.
**** = Good. The game brings something new to the table, innovates, or stands out as a particularly well packaged combination of gameplay, story, atmosphere.
***** = Masterpiece. Not only does this game push the barriers of what games have done before and innovates, but it also has no or very few shortcomings.
Mostly because of 1. my only review up, so far, is JA2. I was so close to completing Fallout Tactics when I ran into the stupid design decision of certain enemies (after they die) blocking passages. I can't procede at a certain mission because the only way forward is blocked. And my last save is ages back. I just didn't have the energy to go back and replay a large portion of the game.
And - because reviewing like this takes time I am unlikely to ever be able to participate in review contests.
-Mnemon

"so close to completing"
That reminds me, I still wonder how some reviewers can get so half arsed lazy to review a game that they only play 15 mins for. If you (referring to reviewers from Gayspot and such) want to review a game, at the very least play through it first, then slowly dissect the different segments - yes that means even if the game is too painful to play through, unless it is an open ended game that focuses less on story and more on the action, like Jagged Alliance. Maybe the first 15 mins are bland, but the next 2 hours are awesome; or this could even happen vice versa. Unfortunately, many reviewers are always so half arsed in their job. What do they get paid for? ZDNet should donate the money to charity and let these lazy bastards live off donuts that Eidos and EA pay for
Amazing how some people don't feel ashamed when they write "I can't even be bothered to play through more than an hour of it"

#1 should be learn how to write well. I hardly read video game reviews anymore because I can't get past the horrible, cliche writing.